The Greeks in Bactria and India c10.s3.132

c10.s3.132

with the name changed and some fresh settlers, for Eucratides would hardly have cared to leave a city to bear the name of one who, in his eyes, was a rebel who had come to his proper end (though even so he might have renamed the town Antioch); but this supposition seems forbidden by the fact that Ptolemy puts Eucratideia among towns not on the Oxus, though a mistake on his part is possible. Another possibility would be that Eucratideia was merely a later foundation made by Heliocles. In fact, the mere name Eucratideia, which is all that we have, gives no safe ground for dogmatising, while it must be remembered that we know nothing of the actual arrangements between Antiochus and Eucratides, except that Antiochus *had* given him the royal title; he already possessed what the name Eucratideia *might* imply that he claimed. We are, I think, entitled to believe that, had Antiochus and Eucratides lived to crush Parthia, Antiochus would then have been able to maintain the unity of the two Seleucid realms, at any rate during his own lifetime, precisely as later, after the Suren had crushed the Saca invasion, Mithridates II was able during his lifetime or most of it to maintain the unity of what had in effect become two Parthian realms.